Huw_Dawson
Member
I wasn't aware that "never going into coalition with the Tories" was a definition of left-of-centre. Do you have a Wikipedia article or something to show me my ignorance?
Or is this just mud slinging?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK Labour Leadership Crisis: Corbyn retained as leader by strong margin
- Thread starter Hazzuh
- Start date
- Status
I wasn't aware that "never going into coalition with the Tories" was a definition of left-of-centre. Do you have a Wikipedia article or something to show me my ignorance?
Or is this just mud slinging?Father_Brain
Banned
Please politely ignore any level of government besides the presidency.
LordRaptor
Member
I wasn't aware that "never going into coalition with the Tories" was a definition of left-of-centre. Do you have a Wikipedia article or something to show me my ignorance?
You have Lib dem seats post-coalition to show how its membership felt about it.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Is this Corbye
I never said they would and that wasn't what your comment was about. The implication of your post was that the people in the PLP calling for Corbyn's resignation were Blairites. That is clearly untrue and anyone who understands anything about the Labour party would realise that was untrue.
Corbout
I don't know if you noticed, but far more than the PLP are calling for Corbyn's resignation.
Corbyn won the last Labour leadership election by a landslide and he might even win the next one too, unless some other contender resonates more. He was a bit lazy campaigning for Remain but perhaps he's hoping that if the Tories lead us into Brexit and ruin (which is exactly what they seem to be doing) then the public might swing back to Labour in the next general, maybe he's letting the Tories dig their own grave. The public swung right when Labour was blamed for the 2008 crisis after all, perhaps the same thing will happen here, risky strategy though
The point of political parties isn't just to win elections either btw. Parties are supposed to represent and maybe even transform the people
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Cor-binned.
Ideological purity means absolutely nothing if you have no effect on government policy. Get rid of him. He is inept.
A lot of the issues outside of that have been self-inflicted wounds, unfortunately.
The man we need! He is labour great white hope of winning an election.
Have you seen the mess that is Corbyn's garden? I don't think he can work with a cactus, either.
paradox121
Member
Yeeeess
Oh god. Oh god please be true.
Coriolanus
Banned
Welp, if jarvis actually tries, things might indeed change. Kinda wanted to se umunna embarass himself again, the feckless bastard.
This comment didn't get enough love.
This comment didn't get enough love.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It's not a super popular leftist position, but basically the idea is it's harder to achieve the goal of the government providing for everyone, if the everyone includes the poorest people from all over the world wanting to get at those government goods.
There's a much more popular leftist view against the EU when looking at the Grexit, and the overall EU response to the great recession which ended up being to the right of the US, but the UK doesn't have to worry about that because they're a special exception who got to keep their own currency.
Jezbollah
Member
PJV3
Member
Cometh the hour...
Boris would struggle against him.
I'm not sure the nation will be in the mood for the clown anymore.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
It beggars belief that after people have seen what an utter failure this man has been over the last 12 months, and his vindictive approach to the remain campaign (it would of far less damaging to just step aside and be honest about being a leaver). People here still want him to lead the labour party, and entire party in disarray because of his poor and ineffectual leadership.
At this point, you people are worse than the Bernie or bust crowd.
At this point, you people are worse than the Bernie or bust crowd.
To be honest, I wouldn't expect any other outcome given the party's disdain for Corbyn since the start. Fair play to him for hanging on this long, but it probably is time to move over. He's not cut out for the ruthlessness of top-flight politics, and I think ultimately too good for it as a human being. All the best British politicians need a degree of slimeball in them to succeed.
Don'tBeWeird
Member
Pardon my ignorance, but why don't people like Chuka Umunna?
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why he shouldn't win. There has to be some reason because right now he looks like the perfect choice.
He blew it last time. Not what the country needs.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
He's a whiny lightweight
also self publicising muppet:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ntry-came-from-his-former-office-8569083.html
Box of Kittens
Banned
This whole thing has made me think about an aspect of the difference between a presidential and a parliamentary system that I hadn't considered before. In the US, if the House Minority Leader had that little support from their caucus, they'd be out no question, since members of the party outside of the House of Representatives have no say on who the floor leaders will be. But Corbyn is more like a hybrid of our Minority Leader and a presidential candidate, so I suppose it makes sense that the party membership should get to have a say. Still it seems like a bad idea to have a leader who lacks support from the people he's supposed to be leading.
The Democratic Party was in a shambles in the 1980s. They technically had a majority in Congress, but that majority depended on Southern Democrats who were Republicans in everything but name (many of whom eventually switched parties). They were completely unable to compete on a national level. They weren't just losing, they were losing big.
I'm not a fan of everything Bill Clinton did by any means, but moving towards the center did enable the party to start winning elections and establish itself as a credible alternative to the Republicans. Since then, whether one chooses to believe this or not, the party has slowly started moving back to the left now that Americans are more receptive to the party's message.
The Democratic Party was in a shambles in the 1980s. They technically had a majority in Congress, but that majority depended on Southern Democrats who were Republicans in everything but name (many of whom eventually switched parties). They were completely unable to compete on a national level. They weren't just losing, they were losing big.
I'm not a fan of everything Bill Clinton did by any means, but moving towards the center did enable the party to start winning elections and establish itself as a credible alternative to the Republicans. Since then, whether one chooses to believe this or not, the party has slowly started moving back to the left now that Americans are more receptive to the party's message.
Tories in an unimaginably week position due to a few bafoons gambling the future of the country on their little political power plays, and the opposition are nowhere to be seen because of their own clusterfuck.
Corbyn, I like you man, but it is way past time now for you to fuck off. PLEASE get your shit together labour.
Corbyn, I like you man, but it is way past time now for you to fuck off. PLEASE get your shit together labour.
He's crap, he couldn't take 1/12th of the shit Corbyn has had thrown at him
Cometh the hour...
He might be a brilliant politician, but my first thought is "Is this the guy, or have they made a Spitting Image puppet of him already?"
openrob
Member
What I don't fucking get is why when the people vote in a leader, the MP's who are 'the voice of the people' are so dead set on sabotaging his leadership.
No.
Hold up, He has had to deal with a media tirade against him, and half of the party consistently fucking shit up. Like the cabinet, these people have a democratically elected leader. The least they could do is follow, instead if throwing a tantrum and demanding what they want.
No.
Hold up, He has had to deal with a media tirade against him, and half of the party consistently fucking shit up. Like the cabinet, these people have a democratically elected leader. The least they could do is follow, instead if throwing a tantrum and demanding what they want.
True enough. I once I had hopes he would be our answer to Obama, but he's not got what it takes.
Possibly some guff about hedge funds, but the most provocative comments about that came from crazy Ken Livingstone. He's squeaky clean, a family man, a widower, and with a military career behind him. If Labour mobilise quickly enough he's a credible threat to Johnson or May if an election is called.
Coriolanus
Banned
Fear of the fallout if he crashes and burns. See: Trump.
Tbf sabotaging the leadership is perfectly fine. Should just be done in a proper, subtle manner. You dont go full throttle unless you're sure it'll work (or a golden opportunity has presented itself, as is the case).
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I have had some patience for Corbyn, but I don't see how anyone can defend him staying any longer. There is very likely to be a general election in October, regardless of who wins the Conservative nomination. Right now, the Parliamentary Labour Party will not stand for Corbyn. You may disagree with this. If so, your only way to change this is to start a deselection process. If that happened right now, the party would split; there are simply too many anti-Corbyn MPs to make that kind of shift possible. That would mean ceding the general election to the Conservatives. Given this election will almost certainly be fought on the topic of Europe, that is absolutely unconscionable; this is perhaps the very final chance to avert a catastrophic sequence of events for the United Kingdom, far beyond the consequences of any normal election.
Normally, I'd be a Starmer man, or perhaps Nandy. Certainly, I'm on the left of the party. But right now, we need Dan Jarvis. I can't see any compelling argument to the alternative.
Normally, I'd be a Starmer man, or perhaps Nandy. Certainly, I'm on the left of the party. But right now, we need Dan Jarvis. I can't see any compelling argument to the alternative.
Well, 1/3rd of labor voters said that they are less likely to vote for labor because of Corbyn, and Labor with Corbyn at its head cannot win in the next election. The people who voted for Corbyn are a small activist minority. They do not represent the general labor voter and certainly do not represent the voter that labor needs to capture to win in the next election.
Labor does not want to be a protest party. They want to represent their constituents by actually winning and gaining power so that they can enact actual change. They do not want to sit on the sidelines so that they can remain smugly ideologically pure while protesting every bad action of the government. They don't want to sit on the sidelines and vainly bemoan that Britain is going in a wrong direction and pat themselves on the back by saying that if only the British people voted in their best interests, were smarter, etc., that they would vote for them. Major political parties don't work like that though. Parties move towards the people. People don't move towards the party.
Coriolanus
Banned
This is somewhat unrelated to the whole corb deal, but given the distance from the election, is there any reason to assume that the third would truly carry on with what they said, instead of doing what hills voters did in 2008 and bern voters threatened to do in 16?
LordRaptor
Member
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Come on Corbyn. Time to go. Let's not make this any uglier then it already is.
You'll be remembered as the worst Labour leader in living memory. Even that war monger Blair was better then you because he demonstrated clear leadership skills.
You'll be remembered as the worst Labour leader in living memory. Even that war monger Blair was better then you because he demonstrated clear leadership skills.
Well, those labor voters have the lib dems, so it isn't like in the US where you have the choice between sanity and insanity.
Plus, even if those labor voters vote labor, they aren't going to win anyways. 1/3rd of labor saying that they are less likely to vote for labor is a pretty good indication that they aren't getting any new voters either.
I think being a warmonger makes you slightly worse that being a shitty leader
LordRaptor
Member
Unlike Kinnock who couldn't get elected against Maggie Thatcher when there were actual literal riots on the streets??????
e:
British public would rather vote for someone who has an unhealthy relationship with pork products than one who visibly dislikes them I guess
I think that's a bit unfair given Corbyn had knives in his back from day one. Never given a chance to succeed so it's more fair just to see his leadership as a write-off than an outright negative. If anything it's shined a light on the gulf between the PLP and the membership, which could be valuable in reconciling and creating a united Labour.
Bustanen
Member
What about Blair? He's not too old yet.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
At least he was electable.
Yep.
You need a certain level of charisma to become the leader of a political party and Corbyn has negative charisma.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
As an American, let me just tell you that you have to control the political center in the first place before you can re-orient that center back to the left.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked